You have butchered our poor language if you think that you can skate by with your bizarre claims - by equating "imitating/mimicking" with either reverse-engineering or "coincidentally working in a similar fashion".
When the first telegraph repeater station was set up, it is accurate to say that it coincidentally worked in a similar fashion to how human brains transmit information, but it is NOT accurate to say that man was mimicking or imitating human brains with that repeater station. For one thing, man didn't even KNOW how the human brain transmitted information back in 1850!
You never bothered with a reply to my post #16. I'm still curious, if you can spare a moment...
You have butchered our poor language if you think that you can skate by with your bizarre claims - by equating "imitating/mimicking" with either reverse-engineering or "coincidentally working in a similar fashion". Nothing compared to the way creationists butcher logic and reason.
When the first telegraph repeater station was set up, it is accurate to say that it coincidentally worked in a similar fashion to how human brains transmit information, but it is NOT accurate to say that man was mimicking or imitating human brains with that repeater station. For one thing, man didn't even KNOW how the human brain transmitted information back in 1850!
First you acknowledge the point, then argue against it in a fashion that supports it, about what I'd expect.
Whether it is a 'conscious' imitation or not is besides the point. Whether you want to admit that a highway is analogous to a blood stream as Base 4 is analogous to Base 2 in their respective functions is of no matter to me.
The fact is you are desperately trying to divert the issue by niggling on these little details from the fact that there is no scientific basis for creationism, and that asserting so is damaging to real science. I understand that my analogies are beyond you, that's to be expected.